The Lions would do the team a great disservice by drafting Stafford for a number of reasons:

1. This team went 0-16. Why draft a player that can't come in and make an immediat impact? Every "expert" says that he''ll have to sit for a year or so. They can't afford to have another draft where the first 3 rounds don't produce starters, let alone the first overall pick not being an immediate starter.
2. Complain about the offense and the need for a quarterback all they want, the pundits also state the obvious. They had the worse defense in the league last year!!!!
3. They don't have the offensive line in place yet that can help a young quarterback.
4. It's too easy to miss on a quarterback. History tells us that.

I'm tired of the hyprocracy of all of the experts too. "This team did it right, they built from the inside out, they built their defense through the draft, they waited until the offense was ready for a young quarterback". These rules seem to apply to every successful organization but not the Lions. "They have to take a quarterback early". Why? So you can rip them later about how they squandered another first round pick? Why is it right for other teams to build from the inside out? Why is it right for other teams to build their defense through the draft?

I don't want to hear any more about how the Lions need to draft the "face of the franchise". Ray Lewis, Brian Urlacher, Joey Porter/Jerome Bettis, Derrick Brooks, all the faces of their respective successful franchises, all winning teams at the time.

Detroit is not a place where they would shun a defensive player being the face of the franchise, they would embrace it. I'll take my chances with a mother of a defense and a so-so offense that has a crusty old vet for a quarterback that can read a defense and won't give the game away for me over a high profile quarterback that gets shelled every time he drops back to pass. I've seen the Joey Harrington experiment play out before. This is a team that has a long history of bad picks at quarterback. Solidify the rest of the offense before drafting a quarterback, build a rock solid defense and go out and be a playoff contender before trying to put a kid behind that line.

Just a few thoughts.

April 23rd, 2009, 4:29 pm

TheRealWags

Megatron

Joined: December 31st, 2004, 9:55 amPosts: 12521

I think I might be starting to warm up to the idea of taking Stafford.
Here's the way I see it:

Most people will agree that you need a good, if not great QB to succeed on a regular basis. Most will also agree that Stafford has the talent to succeed in the NFL, though he may be better off sitting and learning the game for at least a year. So, if we do end up with Stafford, then we should put him as the #3 QB all season and not even think of playing him, let alone starting. This will give him time to learn the NFL game and develope.
I think that we would all agree the chances of the Lions sniffing the playoffs this year are slim and none (and slim left town ). Because of this, whether we want to admit it or not, the team will basically be playing for drafting position (as well as the obvious learning the new systems, team continuity, etc) this year and not much else. Why not load up on at much talent as possible, no matter which side of the ball its on? Then next year, we can draft for whatever the need may be.

April 23rd, 2009, 4:34 pm

blueblood1

Div 1 - Starter

Joined: March 3rd, 2005, 2:19 pmPosts: 577

Quote:

The Lions would do the team a great disservice by drafting Stafford for a number of reasons:

1. This team went 0-16. Why draft a player that can't come in and make an immediat impact? Every "expert" says that he''ll have to sit for a year or so. They can't afford to have another draft where the first 3 rounds don't produce starters, let alone the first overall pick not being an immediate starter. 2. Complain about the offense and the need for a quarterback all they want, the pundits also state the obvious. They had the worse defense in the league last year!!!! 3. They don't have the offensive line in place yet that can help a young quarterback. 4. It's too easy to miss on a quarterback. History tells us that.

I'm tired of the hyprocracy of all of the experts too. "This team did it right, they built from the inside out, they built their defense through the draft, they waited until the offense was ready for a young quarterback". These rules seem to apply to every successful organization but not the Lions. "They have to take a quarterback early". Why? So you can rip them later about how they squandered another first round pick? Why is it right for other teams to build from the inside out? Why is it right for other teams to build their defense through the draft?

I don't want to hear any more about how the Lions need to draft the "face of the franchise". Ray Lewis, Brian Urlacher, Joey Porter/Jerome Bettis, Derrick Brooks, all the faces of their respective successful franchises, all winning teams at the time.

Detroit is not a place where they would shun a defensive player being the face of the franchise, they would embrace it. I'll take my chances with a mother of a defense and a so-so offense that has a crusty old vet for a quarterback that can read a defense and won't give the game away for me over a high profile quarterback that gets shelled every time he drops back to pass. I've seen the Joey Harrington experiment play out before. This is a team that has a long history of bad picks at quarterback. Solidify the rest of the offense before drafting a quarterback, build a rock solid defense and go out and be a playoff contender before trying to put a kid behind that line.

Just a few thoughts.

_________________"With the second pick in the 2007 NFL draft, the Detroit Lions select Calvin Johnson, WR from Georgia Tech."

My favorite day ever as a Lions fan.

Somehow landing the Ndamo-nator would be the second best day ever.

Last edited by blueblood1 on April 23rd, 2009, 4:44 pm, edited 1 time in total.

The Lions would do the team a great disservice by drafting Stafford for a number of reasons:

1. This team went 0-16. Why draft a player that can't come in and make an immediat impact? Every "expert" says that he''ll have to sit for a year or so. They can't afford to have another draft where the first 3 rounds don't produce starters, let alone the first overall pick not being an immediate starter. 2. Complain about the offense and the need for a quarterback all they want, the pundits also state the obvious. They had the worse defense in the league last year!!!!3. They don't have the offensive line in place yet that can help a young quarterback.4. It's too easy to miss on a quarterback. History tells us that.

I'm tired of the hyprocracy of all of the experts too. "This team did it right, they built from the inside out, they built their defense through the draft, they waited until the offense was ready for a young quarterback". These rules seem to apply to every successful organization but not the Lions. "They have to take a quarterback early". Why? So you can rip them later about how they squandered another first round pick? Why is it right for other teams to build from the inside out? Why is it right for other teams to build their defense through the draft?

I don't want to hear any more about how the Lions need to draft the "face of the franchise". Ray Lewis, Brian Urlacher, Joey Porter/Jerome Bettis, Derrick Brooks, all the faces of their respective successful franchises, all winning teams at the time.

Detroit is not a place where they would shun a defensive player being the face of the franchise, they would embrace it. I'll take my chances with a mother of a defense and a so-so offense that has a crusty old vet for a quarterback that can read a defense and won't give the game away for me over a high profile quarterback that gets shelled every time he drops back to pass. I've seen the Joey Harrington experiment play out before. This is a team that has a long history of bad picks at quarterback. Solidify the rest of the offense before drafting a quarterback, build a rock solid defense and go out and be a playoff contender before trying to put a kid behind that line.

Just a few thoughts.

If Stafford becomes a great QB, the bolded part about having to sit for a year is not a valid argument in my opinion. Again, IF he becomes a great QB. Think about it. Jump ahead 3 years from now. If Stafford becomes a great QB, then the Lions will have their QB locked up for years to come and will be well on their way to building a solid team. If he sucks, it doesn't matter if he plays now or next year.

I personally would much rather sacrifice short term success for long term success. I'm not saying that Stafford is or isn't going to be good. I don't know what he'll be. But saying that we need someone to step in now is wrong in my opinion. What we need is someone who is going to be good for the next 5-10 years.

_________________"Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passions, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence." - John Adams

“The good thing about science is that it's true whether or not you believe in it.” - Neil deGrasse Tyson

April 23rd, 2009, 4:39 pm

lionsfanak

5th Round Pick - Traded

Joined: November 15th, 2004, 7:24 amPosts: 1055Location: Alaska

TheRealWags wrote:

I think I might be starting to warm up to the idea of taking Stafford. Here's the way I see it:

Most people will agree that you need a good, if not great QB to succeed on a regular basis. Most will also agree that Stafford has the talent to succeed in the NFL, though he may be better off sitting and learning the game for at least a year. So, if we do end up with Stafford, then we should put him as the #3 QB all season and not even think of playing him, let alone starting. This will give him time to learn the NFL game and develope. I think that we would all agree the chances of the Lions sniffing the playoffs this year are slim and none (and slim left town ). Because of this, whether we want to admit it or not, the team will basically be playing for drafting position (as well as the obvious learning the new systems, team continuity, etc) this year and not much else. Why not load up on at much talent as possible, no matter which side of the ball its on? Then next year, we can draft for whatever the need may be.

I agree on loading up on talent in the draft. So why not take the person that is considered the most talented in the draft? His name is Curry. I just don't see how they can afford to use the first pick in the draft on someone that can't come in and make an immediate impact. Seems like a wasted pick for a team that didn't win a single game during the regular season last year.

I agree on loading up on talent in the draft. So why not take the person that is considered the most talented in the draft? His name is Curry. I just don't see how they can afford to use the first pick in the draft on someone that can't come in and make an immediate impact. Seems like a wasted pick for a team that didn't win a single game during the regular season last year.

The question for me is would you rather have an immediate impact or a larger long term impact? It may be that Curry has a larger impact both immediately and long term. But if Stafford fulfills his potential, there is no doubt that he will have more impact that Curry in my mind. A QB has a greater impact on the outcome of games than a LB. There's no debating that. So, if you believe Stafford is going to be a great QB, you have to take him.

I think all the arguments against Stafford come down to one thing. People don't believe he is going to be a great QB. That's a fair argument. Saying that the player needs to make an immediate impact is flawed in my opinion. The player needs to make a lasting impact.

_________________"Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passions, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence." - John Adams

“The good thing about science is that it's true whether or not you believe in it.” - Neil deGrasse Tyson

April 23rd, 2009, 4:45 pm

m2karateman

RIP Killer

Joined: October 20th, 2004, 4:16 pmPosts: 10408Location: Where ever I'm at now

Re: Ramblings about drafting Stafford

Touchdown Jesus wrote:

lionsfanak wrote:

The Lions would do the team a great disservice by drafting Stafford for a number of reasons:

1. This team went 0-16. Why draft a player that can't come in and make an immediat impact? Every "expert" says that he''ll have to sit for a year or so. They can't afford to have another draft where the first 3 rounds don't produce starters, let alone the first overall pick not being an immediate starter. 2. Complain about the offense and the need for a quarterback all they want, the pundits also state the obvious. They had the worse defense in the league last year!!!!3. They don't have the offensive line in place yet that can help a young quarterback.4. It's too easy to miss on a quarterback. History tells us that.

I'm tired of the hyprocracy of all of the experts too. "This team did it right, they built from the inside out, they built their defense through the draft, they waited until the offense was ready for a young quarterback". These rules seem to apply to every successful organization but not the Lions. "They have to take a quarterback early". Why? So you can rip them later about how they squandered another first round pick? Why is it right for other teams to build from the inside out? Why is it right for other teams to build their defense through the draft?

I don't want to hear any more about how the Lions need to draft the "face of the franchise". Ray Lewis, Brian Urlacher, Joey Porter/Jerome Bettis, Derrick Brooks, all the faces of their respective successful franchises, all winning teams at the time.

Detroit is not a place where they would shun a defensive player being the face of the franchise, they would embrace it. I'll take my chances with a mother of a defense and a so-so offense that has a crusty old vet for a quarterback that can read a defense and won't give the game away for me over a high profile quarterback that gets shelled every time he drops back to pass. I've seen the Joey Harrington experiment play out before. This is a team that has a long history of bad picks at quarterback. Solidify the rest of the offense before drafting a quarterback, build a rock solid defense and go out and be a playoff contender before trying to put a kid behind that line.

Just a few thoughts.

If Stafford becomes a great QB, the bolded part about having to sit for a year is not a valid argument in my opinion. Again, IF he becomes a great QB. Think about it. Jump ahead 3 years from now. If Stafford becomes a great QB, then the Lions will have their QB locked up for years to come and will be well on their way to building a solid team. If he sucks, it doesn't matter if he plays now or next year.

I personally would much rather sacrifice short term success for long term success. I'm not saying that Stafford is or isn't going to be good. I don't know what he'll be. But saying that we need someone to step in now is wrong in my opinion. What we need is someone who is going to be good for the next 5-10 years.

Stafford can become a great QB, but not until the team that he plays for allows him to develop, and is capable of building the team around him to be such that they aren't dependent on him to win games. Big Ben fell into a PERFECT situation in Pittsburgh, because they've NEVER put the ball into his hands and said, "it's up to you to win the game." at the onset of that game. Sure, he's had game winning drives that have won games, like in the Super Bowl. But he's never felt the pressure that he will have to be the one to pull it out if it is close at the end, at the beginning of the game. He had a stellar defense, he had a solid running game to rely on until he got his opportunities to make his mark. Same thing happened last season for both Flacco and Ryan. It wasn't put on them to keep the team in the game and win it.

The Lions have so much building to do, and they need those pieces to get it done. If they draft Stafford and their other picks don't pan out, then the result is that Stafford has no shot of working out either. Get the parts now, see how they do. Then, once you have them in place, bring in your fancy new toy (franchise QB), get a stop gap vet QB (if one isn't already in place) and then when the kid is given his chance, it will be on much better terms than if he is forced into service (ala Joe Flacco) due to injury or illness.

April 23rd, 2009, 4:46 pm

blueblood1

Div 1 - Starter

Joined: March 3rd, 2005, 2:19 pmPosts: 577

Touchdown Jesus wrote:

So, if you believe Stafford is going to be a great QB, you have to take him.

I think all the arguments against Stafford come down to one thing. People don't believe he is going to be a great QB. That's a fair argument. Saying that the player needs to make an immediate impact is flawed in my opinion.

Also fair. This is what it has always come down to for me, and I'm looking across the fence at an Irish fan (imagine that).

_________________"With the second pick in the 2007 NFL draft, the Detroit Lions select Calvin Johnson, WR from Georgia Tech."

My favorite day ever as a Lions fan.

Somehow landing the Ndamo-nator would be the second best day ever.

April 23rd, 2009, 4:48 pm

TheRealWags

Megatron

Joined: December 31st, 2004, 9:55 amPosts: 12521

lionsfanak wrote:

TheRealWags wrote:

I think I might be starting to warm up to the idea of taking Stafford. Here's the way I see it:

Most people will agree that you need a good, if not great QB to succeed on a regular basis. Most will also agree that Stafford has the talent to succeed in the NFL, though he may be better off sitting and learning the game for at least a year. So, if we do end up with Stafford, then we should put him as the #3 QB all season and not even think of playing him, let alone starting. This will give him time to learn the NFL game and develope. I think that we would all agree the chances of the Lions sniffing the playoffs this year are slim and none (and slim left town ). Because of this, whether we want to admit it or not, the team will basically be playing for drafting position (as well as the obvious learning the new systems, team continuity, etc) this year and not much else. Why not load up on at much talent as possible, no matter which side of the ball its on? Then next year, we can draft for whatever the need may be.

I agree on loading up on talent in the draft. So why not take the person that is considered the most talented in the draft? His name is Curry. I just don't see how they can afford to use the first pick in the draft on someone that can't come in and make an immediate impact. Seems like a wasted pick for a team that didn't win a single game during the regular season last year.

So, let me ask you, when or how do you plan on obtaining our QB of the future? Next year? That would mean that we're expecting to be drafting in the top 5 or so; which would also mean that the contract for the QB next year would be more than what we would be paying now. Not too mention, if that QB busts, then you just wasted this year.FA/Trade? Not likelyOn roster? about as likely as FA/Trade option

Touchdown Jesus wrote:

I personally would much rather sacrifice short term success for long term success. I'm not saying that Stafford is or isn't going to be good. I don't know what he'll be. But saying that we need someone to step in now is wrong in my opinion. What we need is someone who is going to be good for the next 5-10 years.

Well said. Agreed

Another thing I wanted to add. I heard something yesterday that really got me to thinking, maybe some of you could help me out.
One analyst (can't remember who or even what channel it was on) said that a "Franchise QB" is made by the team and players around him. Surround him with talent AND a good FO/coaching staff and he will succeed. Take that same "Franchise QB" and put him on a team with little to no talent and/or with a crappy FO/coaching staff (gee, we actually had both ) and he will not succeed. This is not to say that Joey (for example) would have been a Francise QB, but I'm sure most, if not all, of us would agree that he would've been a lot better (serviceable) if he had better talent around him and a coaching staff that wanted to coach him.

Stafford can become a great QB, but not until the team that he plays for allows him to develop, and is capable of building the team around him to be such that they aren't dependent on him to win games. Big Ben fell into a PERFECT situation in Pittsburgh, because they've NEVER put the ball into his hands and said, "it's up to you to win the game." at the onset of that game. Sure, he's had game winning drives that have won games, like in the Super Bowl. But he's never felt the pressure that he will have to be the one to pull it out if it is close at the end, at the beginning of the game. He had a stellar defense, he had a solid running game to rely on until he got his opportunities to make his mark. Same thing happened last season for both Flacco and Ryan. It wasn't put on them to keep the team in the game and win it.

The Lions have so much building to do, and they need those pieces to get it done. If they draft Stafford and their other picks don't pan out, then the result is that Stafford has no shot of working out either. Get the parts now, see how they do. Then, once you have them in place, bring in your fancy new toy (franchise QB), get a stop gap vet QB (if one isn't already in place) and then when the kid is given his chance, it will be on much better terms than if he is forced into service (ala Joe Flacco) due to injury or illness.

I understand what you're saying, but the main problem with your line of reasoning is that finding a franchise QB after the team already has some success is very hard to do. Pitt got Big Ben after a terrible year so they had a relatively high draft pick. Flacco is still an unknown. It's not as simple as just picking a franchise QB anywhere. They are hard to come by. The Bears have been trying to find one for years. They may finally have one now. The Bucs, Ravens, Jags, Titans...all solid teams with good D that have been hoping for a franchise QB for a long time.

Now, I'll take their success over the Lions failure any day. I'm just saying that finding a franchise QB is hard, and if you think you have a shot at him now, you take him. The bottom line to me is that if Stafford turns out to be a solid QB, I have no problem if he sits for a year, or even 2. Long term success is how I measure things. Not what a player can do next year.

_________________"Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passions, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence." - John Adams

“The good thing about science is that it's true whether or not you believe in it.” - Neil deGrasse Tyson

April 23rd, 2009, 4:57 pm

Blueskies

QB Coach - Brian Callahan

Joined: September 13th, 2007, 12:43 pmPosts: 3108

Re: Ramblings about drafting Stafford

m2karateman wrote:

Touchdown Jesus wrote:

lionsfanak wrote:

The Lions would do the team a great disservice by drafting Stafford for a number of reasons:

1. This team went 0-16. Why draft a player that can't come in and make an immediat impact? Every "expert" says that he''ll have to sit for a year or so. They can't afford to have another draft where the first 3 rounds don't produce starters, let alone the first overall pick not being an immediate starter. 2. Complain about the offense and the need for a quarterback all they want, the pundits also state the obvious. They had the worse defense in the league last year!!!!3. They don't have the offensive line in place yet that can help a young quarterback.4. It's too easy to miss on a quarterback. History tells us that.

I'm tired of the hyprocracy of all of the experts too. "This team did it right, they built from the inside out, they built their defense through the draft, they waited until the offense was ready for a young quarterback". These rules seem to apply to every successful organization but not the Lions. "They have to take a quarterback early". Why? So you can rip them later about how they squandered another first round pick? Why is it right for other teams to build from the inside out? Why is it right for other teams to build their defense through the draft?

I don't want to hear any more about how the Lions need to draft the "face of the franchise". Ray Lewis, Brian Urlacher, Joey Porter/Jerome Bettis, Derrick Brooks, all the faces of their respective successful franchises, all winning teams at the time.

Detroit is not a place where they would shun a defensive player being the face of the franchise, they would embrace it. I'll take my chances with a mother of a defense and a so-so offense that has a crusty old vet for a quarterback that can read a defense and won't give the game away for me over a high profile quarterback that gets shelled every time he drops back to pass. I've seen the Joey Harrington experiment play out before. This is a team that has a long history of bad picks at quarterback. Solidify the rest of the offense before drafting a quarterback, build a rock solid defense and go out and be a playoff contender before trying to put a kid behind that line.

Just a few thoughts.

If Stafford becomes a great QB, the bolded part about having to sit for a year is not a valid argument in my opinion. Again, IF he becomes a great QB. Think about it. Jump ahead 3 years from now. If Stafford becomes a great QB, then the Lions will have their QB locked up for years to come and will be well on their way to building a solid team. If he sucks, it doesn't matter if he plays now or next year.

I personally would much rather sacrifice short term success for long term success. I'm not saying that Stafford is or isn't going to be good. I don't know what he'll be. But saying that we need someone to step in now is wrong in my opinion. What we need is someone who is going to be good for the next 5-10 years.

Stafford can become a great QB, but not until the team that he plays for allows him to develop, and is capable of building the team around him to be such that they aren't dependent on him to win games. Big Ben fell into a PERFECT situation in Pittsburgh, because they've NEVER put the ball into his hands and said, "it's up to you to win the game." at the onset of that game. Sure, he's had game winning drives that have won games, like in the Super Bowl. But he's never felt the pressure that he will have to be the one to pull it out if it is close at the end, at the beginning of the game. He had a stellar defense, he had a solid running game to rely on until he got his opportunities to make his mark. Same thing happened last season for both Flacco and Ryan. It wasn't put on them to keep the team in the game and win it.

The Lions have so much building to do, and they need those pieces to get it done. If they draft Stafford and their other picks don't pan out, then the result is that Stafford has no shot of working out either. Get the parts now, see how they do. Then, once you have them in place, bring in your fancy new toy (franchise QB), get a stop gap vet QB (if one isn't already in place) and then when the kid is given his chance, it will be on much better terms than if he is forced into service (ala Joe Flacco) due to injury or illness.

The fallacy here is that you're equating the first pick with "building up the team".

The first pick is only one pick. Just one guy. Let's not make it out to be more than it is.

In order for the FO to "build this team up" they're going to have to hit on many picks, both this year and the next two or three.

Let's assume they take Stafford. Then they sit him for a year. They go defense/offensive line with picks 20, 33, 3a, and 3b. In the 2010 draft they use their first, second, and third rounds picks on more defensive players/offensive lineman. Then Stafford starts the 2010 season with a "built team" comprised of the 7 new offensive lineman/defensive players you brought in with picks other than the #1 pick.

Remember, the Lions have a lot of good picks this year, and Stafford doesn't have to play right away. There is no reason to say that the team cannot be "built up" by the time he starts. Further, there is no reason to say you can't build a team up without drafting Aaron Curry.

I think most people are overvaluing the number one pick. The player selected will have a huge impact, but he won't make or break the franchise.

My problem is the apparent genuine interest our FO has in Stafford. He's lacking in so many areas that I just have to ask, why? I can only think that they're trying to match up a QB with Calvin Johnson, so they've settled on Stafford because he's got a strong arm. But having a strong arm is not a guarantee of success. There's been so many guys with howitzers that just could not get it done in the nfl, because they had no accuracy. If this is the reasoning, It's such unintelligent strategy it blows me away. And while I believe starts are important, Sanchez on tape looks way better than Stafford. Seems the rest of the league has come to that conclusion as well. And if they really want a guy with a strong arm, they already have Culpepper. At least that guy got it done before.

I also agree that the best team building philosophy is to build the team up first to put a QB in a position to succeed. And what really makes this incomprehensible, is the fact that he's an early entry QB. If we were taking a senior with the starts to go with it, you just might be able to play him early. But we're taking someone to be the highest paid on the team to take it easy on the bench and just watch. It'd be way more prudent to wait to draft next year, a 3 year starter who is a senior or RS jr, because you may be able to play them as rookies ala Ryan, Flacco, Roethlisberger.

This is a big deal to me. It's such a pivotal point that I don't think people realize the magnitude of this pick. For me, this pick will determine the identity of our team due to the sheer notoriety of the no. 1 pick and the contract it will demand. Will we be an offensive juggernaut, or a dominating defense. If we take Stafford, then we'll have to utilize much more of our resources surrounding him with protection and weapons, to justify the investment... at the expense of our defense. If we go with Curry, then he's the centerpiece for an attacking aggressive defense. What would you rather have? I know the results speak for themselves. And I don't need to reiterate every single positive point that pops up daily why Curry should be the pick.

So, let me ask you, when or how do you plan on obtaining our QB of the future? Next year? That would mean that we're expecting to be drafting in the top 5 or so; which would also mean that the contract for the QB next year would be more than what we would be paying now. Not too mention, if that QB busts, then you just wasted this year.FA/Trade? Not likelyOn roster? about as likely as FA/Trade option

How is this not likely? You can find teams willing to part with talented QBs either through trade or free agency because they are just too expensive to keep on the team.(Hasselback,Brees,Cassell,Schaub,Quinn, Leinart etc...). In other words, you can find QBs all the time (even if the Lions haven't) you can't find OL and defense IMO. They just aren't available because good teams understand their value.

You don't find really good defensive players or OL floating around in free agency unless they are at the end of their ropes. That's why the team let them go in the first place. That's why early picks of these types of players are paramount.

So, let me ask you, when or how do you plan on obtaining our QB of the future? Next year? That would mean that we're expecting to be drafting in the top 5 or so; which would also mean that the contract for the QB next year would be more than what we would be paying now. Not too mention, if that QB busts, then you just wasted this year.FA/Trade? Not likelyOn roster? about as likely as FA/Trade option

How is this not likely? You can find teams willing to part with talented QBs either through trade or free agency because they are just too expensive to keep on the team.(Hasselback,Brees,Cassell,Schaub,Quinn, Leinart etc...). In other words, you can find QBs all the time (even if the Lions haven't) you can't find OL and defense IMO. They just aren't available because good teams understand their value.

You don't find really good defensive players or OL floating around in free agency unless they are at the end of their ropes. That's why the team let them go in the first place. That's why early picks of these types of players are paramount.

My opinion is that this team is in no way in position to draft a QB #1 right now. They don't have the talent around him to help him (on the offensive line). You cannot build a team with one pick even if it is the first overall but you cannot afford to miss on it either and history tells us that it's too easy to miss on a quarterback.

I think you need to build the rest of the team before putting a young quarterback in the mix. Look at Roethlisburger as an example. Defense in place, running game in place, playmakers on the outside in place offensive line in place. Going to teams without a solid offense. Look at the Ravens. The defense has kept them respectable and even won a Super Bowl for them. The same could be said for Tampa, just not to the same degree. Even though they had a horrible quarterback, they had some players on the offense.

Short term success in favor of long term success? Then why draft a quarterback that will have to sit instead of a player that can contribute on day one?

If it were my draft, the first three picks would be linebacker, offensive line and defensive line. Who those players would be would depend on who is available. I would build from the inside out and start with the lines/linebackers. Call me crazy but it seems to work for a bunch of other teams.